HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 7 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 333 of 2017 Petitioner :- Mohd. Arif And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Basic Edu.Govt.Of Up Lucknow & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishan Kanhaya Pal,Pooja Pal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish Mishra connected with Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 489 of 2017 Petitioner :- Manju Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Edu.Basic Civil Sectt.Lko.&Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar and Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 587 of 2017 Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Bajpai & Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Secy Basic Edu Lko & Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Manjive Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Manish Mishra,Rajiv Singh Chauhan and Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 795 of 2017 Petitioner :- Faheem Beg Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu.Civil Sectt.Lko.&Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Karunesh Singh Pawar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Manish Mishra Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Pursuant to order dated 25.01.2017, Sri D.P.Singh, Special Secretary, Department of Basic Education is present.� He has stated that after issuance of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016, the State Government has issued another Government Order dated 19.12.2016 providing therein that in terms of the earlier transfer policy embodied in the Government Order dated 23.06.2016, the remaining on-line application forms submitted by the teachers seeking their inter-district transfers can be considered in terms of the earlier policy itself.� The Government Order dated 19.12.2016 is taken on record. However, on a query being put to him as to whether before passing the transfer order dated 03.01.2017 whereby several inter-district transfers of the teachers has been effected, prior approval of the Basic Education Board, as is required to be taken under Rule 21 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, was taken or not, it has been stated by Sri D.P.Singh, Special Secretary that no such approval was sought before passing the order dated 03.01.2017.�� Such a course adopted by the State Government while passing the transfer order on 03.01.2017 is not only against the statutory provisions contained in Rule 21 of the aforesaid Rules but is also in violation of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016. It is noticeable that the Government Order dated 19.12.2016 permitted consideration of remaining on-line applications only in terms of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016 and as such without seeking approval of the Basic Education Board, no such inter-district transfers could have been effected. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that it is not only that only one order on 03.01.2017 effecting several inter-district transfers of teachers was passed but there are several such orders. Learned Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received from Special Secretary present today has stated that in fact on 03.01.2017 two orders effecting several inter-district transfers of teachers have been passed by the State Government.� He has also stated that these two orders passed on 03.01.2017 contain lists of teachers most of whom had submitted off-line applications, which was impermissible under the Rules and the Government Order. Such a procedure of effecting inter-district transfer is neither contemplated in Rule 21 of the Rules nor in the Government Order dated 23.06.2016. This bunch of writ petitions contain averments that while effecting inter-district transfers of teachers, the Basic Education Board and the respective Basic Shiksha Adhikaris have not followed the priority as contemplated in the Government Order dated 23.06.2016.� There appears to be large scale discrepancies in the inter-district transfers made by the respondents. Any statute or statutory Rules or even a Government Policy is binding on the Government as much as it is binding on others.�� The facts of this case clearly establish that State Government has acted against its own norms which are embodied in the Service Rules, 1981 and the Government order dated 23.06.2016.� Further, despite prescribing that only on-line applications seeking inter-district transfer shall be considered, the State Government while passing at least two orders on 03.01.2017 has considered off-line applications of teachers and passed orders thereon, which has not only resulted in making the process adopted by the Government non-transparent but has also deprived several teachers of the opportunity of making applications.� Such a course adopted by the State Government is, thus, prima facie, arbitrary and also suffers from the vice of malice in law as prima facie there is no justification for deviation from the prescribed norms. Accordingly, till further orders of this Court, operation and implementation of these two orders said to have been issued by the State Government on 03.01.2017 effecting inter-district transfers of the teachers in Primary and Junior High Schools in the State of U.P. are hereby stayed. The teachers who have been transferred in terms of the said orders will not be allowed to work and discharge their duties at the places of their new posting.� They shall, however, be permitted to discharge their duties in the schools where they have been working prior to passing of the orders on 03.01.2017 by the State Government. Let counter affidavit be filed in these matters by the respondents within a period of two weeks.� One week's time thereafter shall be available to learned counsel for the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit. List after expiry of the aforesaid period showing the name of Sri Upendra Nath Mishra as counsel for the respondent. It will be open to the teachers who are affected by the order passed on 03.01.2017 by the State Government to seek their intervention in this case. Order Date :- 27.1.2017 Renu/-